Does Jesus Love You? Hate Your? Conditionally So?

In terms of accuracy, the Bible has been shown to have been replicated from the first-century documents with a greater accuracy than just about any literary work out there.

I've heard this argument numerous times here. Just because something was copied correctly (and truth be told there isn't as much evidence to support perfection in copying as you claim) doesn't mean the underlying act is true.

We have very little reason to believe that the actual account given is inaccurate....

Besides a dead guy coming back to life, you mean? Or a virgin giving birth? What about the story of the Stay-Puf marshmallow man attacking Jerusalem? Oops, that story didn't make the final edit.

 

I edited that since you responded I think, because I miswrote. My point on accuracy was that we know that what we're reading is the actual account from the eyewitness, the question is whether we believe it or not.

 

Perham1,

If you truly believe eyewitness accounts are worthless, then how can you believe anything in science? Science is testimony from eye witnesses.

 

If you truly believe eyewitness accounts are worthless, then how can you believe anything in science? Science is testimony from eye witnesses.

Wow.

Please tell me you didn't just write that.

I sometimes go overboard in my claims that y'all don't know anything about science, but when statements like this are made, I may just be right.

Really, if that is what you think science is then it is just sad. Part of science, a big part, is verifying experiments. The "eyewitness" part is quite small.

 

Dionysus,

---

 

i think too that the catechism says (from memory) that "the plan of salvation is open to all who love the one true god, amongst them muslims...."

Two points.

Point the First: The "one true god" here is undoubtedly the Christian god, and for a Muslim to believe in Jesus (the Christian god) then he wouldn't be Muslim now, would he?

Point the Second: This also says that if you don't believe in Jesus then you don't go to heaven, i.e., you go to hell.

Which means Jesus isn't so loving after all.

 

Eyewitness acounts of a garden of eden? of a virgin birth? of turning wine into water? Perhaps there really are eyewitness of accounts of various events, and perhaps the accounts of the eyewitness have been handed down as the eyewitness saw them, but NOBODY can or EVER will be able to prove either the reliability of those alleged eyewitness accounts and they serve no use, even if they are totally correct renditions of what was allegedy "seen", towards proving the interpretations of those accounts. If you saw Jesus roll his eyes back into his head and then say something really poignant you can accurately report what you saw. You can never prove, and I can never disprove, that his eyes rolled back because he was receiving a message from his father, the one "true" god. Give it up. It just isn't going to happen. You want to beleive that it was a message - you want to believe it was not. Doesn't matter You want to believe that god prefers Auburn over Alabama and that is why you were given the ability to score a touchdown or that you should be grateful that your house was razed by a storn, but your cat survived? Go for it, but don't pretend that it is provable or even rational. It's perfectly fine to just "have a little faith baby, have a little faith" Oddball from Kelley's heroes.

Just because you have spent a great deal of time studying this stuff may make you a scholar in this area, but you will NEVER be able to make the rational leap to PROVE the story and, quite frankly, you don't want to. If you really understand and have "faith" you don't want it provable or disprovable.

 

Just because you have spent a great deal of time studying this stuff may make you a scholar in this area, but you will NEVER be able to make the rational leap to PROVE the story and, quite frankly, you don't want to.

Because we all know what happens should they eat from the Tree of Knowledge....

 

I do think it's a little funny that you guys are spending this much energy trying to convince us that an imaginary guy doesn't love us.

Well, if you were paying attention you would have seen that my point is that this imaginary guy hates those who don't believe in him.

 

That REALLY wasn't intended as some sort of a throwdown or anything. Much more so an olive branch. "It's like detente, comrade, You don't have it! we don't have it!". You can't prove it and I can't disprove it. Let's quit that subject because it will NEVER be resolved.

 

where does it say that?

So let's get this straight: you are saying that if one does not not believe in Jesus then one does not necessarily go to hell?

Are you also saying that a belief in Jesus is not required to get into heaven?

Just so you know, the accepted Christian belief is that the only way one gets to heaven is by believing in Jesus; conversely, not believing will banish you to hell.

It's in the bible, I believe.

 

I know. If there is no afterlife to live for, why not just let us live in our insane fantasy.

This is where Judaism exhibits a much higher degree of maturity than does Christianity. Jews don't need the promise of an afterlife to make them do the right thing, to have them lead a good life. Not saying that all Jews do so, for they do not. But then, neither do all Christians.

 

Perham1 is science based on human observation or not?

 

I do think it's a little funny that you guys are spending this much energy trying to convince us that an imaginary guy hates people who don't believe in him.

I'm just seeing if you can follow the logic of your own myth-text. So far the jury is still out.

 

Perham1 is science based on human observation or not?

Are you attempting to justify your earlier statement that science is based on eyewitness testimony?

Lol.

You can go down that primrose path yourself, my friend. Unlike you, I see the dead end to which you're traveling.

But in all seriousness, please learn what science is if you want to engage in these discussions.

 

Perham1, not justify, clarify.

Is science or is it not based on human observation which in essence is eyewitness testimony?

 

Are you saying that there were 500 "eyewitnesses" to this?

 

monahorns,

This is your highly absurd, and imo ignorant statement.

Perham1,

If you truly believe eyewitness accounts are worthless, then how can you believe anything in science? Science is testimony from eye witnesses.

Like I said, your utter lack of understanding what science prevents this from being a fruitful discussion.

When you understand the, to be frank, stupidity of your statement then we can go forward. Will we be going forward any time soon?

 

I guess not because you aren't smart enough to answer the question. Oh well.

 

You invoking the "smartness card".

Maybe you are supremely clueless....

I try to give you the benefit of the doubt but it gets difficult at times.

You need to own up to the stupidity of your eyewitness science comment. But maybe you can't. Maybe you really don't see the weakness and flaw in it. Your refusal to see it forces me to conclude that you can't see it, that you really don't understand science. Which, unfortunately, is the case for a lot of modern-day evangelicals.